The Impact of Highly and Minimally Guided Discovery Instruction on Promoting the Learning of Reasoning Strategies for Basic Add-1 and Doubles Combinations
Baroody, Arthur J.; Purpura, David J.; Eiland, Michael D.; Reid, Erin E. (2015). Early Childhood Research Quarterly v30 p93-105. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577294
-
examining81Students, gradesK-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Guided Discovery)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fluency on unpracticed doubles combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Doubles training vs. Minimally guided practice;
|
0.17 |
0.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fluency on unpracticed add-1 combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Add-1 training vs. Minimally guided practice;
|
0.36 |
0.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fluency on unpracticed doubles combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Add-1 training vs. Minimally guided practice;
|
0.09 |
0.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fluency on unpracticed add-1 combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Doubles training vs. Minimally guided practice;
|
0.28 |
0.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fluency on unpracticed add-0 combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Add-1 training vs. Minimally guided practice;
|
0.76 |
0.87 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fluency on unpracticed add-0 combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Doubles training vs. Minimally guided practice;
|
0.69 |
0.87 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fluency on unpracticed doubles combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Intervention |
2 Weeks |
Doubles training vs. Add-1 training;
|
0.17 |
0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fluency on unpracticed add-1 combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Add-1 training vs. Doubles training;
|
0.36 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fluency on unpracticed add-0 combinations |
Guided Discovery vs. Intervention |
2 Weeks |
Add-1 training vs. Doubles training;
|
0.76 |
0.68 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
5% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
-
Race Black 54% Other or unknown 20% White 26% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 5% Not Hispanic or Latino 95%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three elementary schools in two school districts. Two of the schools served high risk children and one served children living in a middle class neighborhood. The schools were located in two midwestern cities in the US.
Study sample
A total of 81 students in kindergarten through second grade were included in the study. On average, student participants were 6.1 years of age. Approximately 52% of the students were male, 77% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 5% were English learners, 8% had delays in language development, and 6% had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Fifty-four percent were Black, 26% were White, and 20% had an unknown or other race category. Five percent were Hispanic or Latino and 95% were non-Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
The two intervention conditions consisted of highly guided computer-based training focusing on two types of an addition practice: (1) add-1 training and (2) doubles training. Both practices involved highly guided discovery, which is well-structured and moderately explicit training with considerable scaffolding in either add-1 or doubles relations. The interventions were provided as a supplement to regular math instruction in classrooms and were delivered in two 30-minute sessions per week for 20 weeks. Instruction involved five stages of training on the computer. The main training module consisted of sequentially arranging problems (either add-1 or doubles items) to highlight a relation and to direct a child's attention to the particular relation and strategy to solve it.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was the minimally guided practice condition. Implementation of the minimally guided practice condition consisted of engaging students in similar computer-based activities (e.g., games using a number list), which covered both add-1 and doubles strategies; however, the feedback provided to students consisted of whether a response to a problem was correct or not and did not explicitly focus on making connections to prior knowledge.
Support for implementation
Preparatory training was provided to all students to ensure that they had the computer skills necessary to benefit from the computer-based interventions.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).